Making software is a challenging thing to do. In case of any mistakes, it may cause a big lose to an individual or a company. Therefore, it is vital to consider its need and development purpose (Far, n.d., p. 3). Strategically, encouraging software measurement helps in avoiding excessive reviews of running software. The ideology behind software measurement is to avoid manipulation. As years go by, it is evident that man has acknowledged that computers are part of his life. It is used for survival and protection purposes. Apart from just maintaining software, one needs to be in control of the software. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to have a plan on how to carry out software measurement. For example, different softwares have been developed to help in money transfers. This involves banks and mobile phone users. A slight mistake indicated in the software could cause huge losses on either side. Some computer wizards can crack software for their benefits. This means that they will control the system and eventually they can bring down a company built for many years in five minutes.
Considering the above concept, it is important to identify the need for software measurement. In addition, it is worthwhile to understand the steps required for proper software measurement. For example, several questions can be focused on security purposes. This is the key responsibility for measurement. People usually want to benefit from other people’s sweat. To avoid such incidences, the call for security measures when developing software is vital. On the contrary, software measurement comes alongside four elements. These are characterization, evaluation, prediction and improvement (Park, Goethert and Florac, 1996, p. 21).These four elements will help an organization achieve its goals based on the level of urgency.
The quality of a product is determined by quantity of measurement. Involving the right figures will determine the outcome of a product. For example, some software developers have failed to characterize their aim for given software. Identifying a common factor that will intricate and sell itself is vital. It helps in defining itself and eventually stands out from a number of works that seem obsolete. After being able to characterize software, the need to evaluate it is obligatory. Through evaluation, it will involve several heads that have different opinions on its outlook. This means that, incorporating other ideas to the one in place will make a difference. The process of software measurement encourages ideas that are deemed applicable. Weighing this ideas eventually ascertain that one is better than the other is. In the end, it means that, more heads will be required to come up to such a conclusion. Prediction and improvement come hand in hand. In order to measure the quality of a product, certain predictions need to be made. This is a rough estimate of what is required to happen. Therefore, predictions determine the future outcome. With a rough ideology of what might be, incurred improvements are made Securing of data to avoid manipulation also helps to determine the quality of the products. In the end, something better comes of it.
When familiarizing with a situation, one has to have certain objectives in mind. In this case, software measurement entails quantity and quality. These key objective factors will determine nature of the product. For example, to have a unique product that can be used by different organizations, will be determined by several measures. Amount of Knowledge is one of the measures. Without knowledge, none of the ideas in place can be put together. This means that, one should also be organized in order to place ideas well. The benefits of objectivity are to organize ideas (Caldiera, and Basili, n.d., p. 4). In addition, it facilitates productivity to its fullest. This also includes characterization that simply indicates the nature of prudence implemented. Understanding of the key objective factors will meet the desired results and eventually a quality product is drawn.
According to Ikerionwu (2010, p. 121), further research is required to measure software complexity as best as possible. The present study, designed to barrack organizations to measure software for improvements, would measure software complexity as part of the statistical analysis on SUMI results to prove that software measurement is easy for all organizations. Given that software measurement is part of quality management, it should be considered as essential as recruitment of better staff, purchase of specialized machinery, or enhancement of products and services. Aguero et. al. (2010, pp. 235-238) describe a complex software measurement system known as the Intelligent Java Analyzer, still in the process of development. While the authors mention the need for further research in the area of software measurement, it may be assumed that complicated software measurement programs dissuade organizations from considering measurement of software for quality improvement (Parkinson, Hierons, Lycett, & Norman, 2010, p. 5). On the other hand, the present study built on SUMI surveys would call for further research to determine that this simple software measurement program can be implemented at all types of organizations.
Reference List
Caldiera, G. and Basili, V. R. (n.d.). Identifying and qualifying reusable software components
Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/journals/J41.pdf
Far, B. H. (n.d.). Global based software measurement framework (chapter 3). Retrieved January
22, 2013, from
http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/far/Lectures/SENG421/PDF/SENG421-03_handout.pdf
Ikerionwu, C. (2010, May). Cyclomatic complexity as a software metric. International Journal
of Academic Research, 2(3).
Park, R. E., Goethert, W. B. and Florac, W. A. (1996). Goal-driven software measurement
—a guidebook. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/96hb002.pdf
Parkinson, S. T., Hierons, R. M., Lycett, M., & Norman, M. (2010). Practitioner-Based
Measurement: A Collaborative Approach. Communications of the ACM, 53(3).
SUMI. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://sumi.ucc.ie/index.html
